Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is pre-covered. The description adds something the annotations cannot: 'opens nothing by itself' and 'Returns how to do it in Gymdesk step by step' make clear this is an instructional tool, not a data fetch — a critical behavioral fact that contradicts nothing in the annotations. It stops short of describing output shape or length of the returned instructions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the hand-off to cotlet_browser_* tools are front-loaded, which is good. The trailing note about 404s at gymdesk.com/api, /developers, and docs.gymdesk.com/api on 11 Nov 2026 is verbose justification that an agent does not need in order to select or call the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden, and it does explain what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what the agent should do next. Gaps remain around export formats and the scope of 'payments' relative to billing/accounting reports, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning left to convey. The description does not need to add anything further here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('View and export payments') and immediately clarifies the tool's actual nature: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as the accounting export or sales-transaction export tools, so differentiation rests on the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent what to do after calling it ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Gymdesk Cloud Browser'), which is genuine usage context. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the many sibling view/export reports, nor any conditions or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.